Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Claude Debussy/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2018.

Claude Debussy

 * Nominator(s): Dmass (talk); Smerus (talk);   Tim riley  talk    16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has featured articles on nine French composers – Alkan, Bizet, Fauré, Massenet, Messiaen, Messager, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns – and we hope to increase that number to ten with this article on one of France’s greatest. After a particularly thorough and fruitful peer review we think the article is ready for consideration as a featured article. We look forward to your comments. Dmass (talk); Smerus (talk);  Tim riley  talk    16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda
My few concerns in the peer review were all met, especially transforming a mere list of influenced composers' names to a meaningful section. Bravi. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging and adding thanks for this support.  Tim riley  talk    06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

SC

 * Lead
 * Really minor, but there's a serial comma at "(1894), Nocturnes (1897–99), and Images (1905–1912)", but not elsewhere.
 * Slightly pointlessly, the MoS now states that we should put dates as "1897–1899", etc.
 * He "was nearly forty", but died "at the age of 55" with a "career of a little more than thirty years": needs to be consistent.
 * All attended to. (Strange new rule about date ranges: out of step with general publishing practice surely?)  Tim riley  talk    06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, but such is life for those who needlessly tinker with the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * Should "premier accessit" and "deuxième accessit" be in italics? (Asked from a position of ignorance!)
 * And answered from the same position, but I think probably yes, and have changed.  Tim riley  talk    06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

More later. – SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these points. We'll await your further suggestions for improvements.  Tim riley  talk    06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Continuing...


 * Return to Paris, 1887
 * Probably worth a comma in "During the Exposition Debussy", or it looks like it was named after him.
 * Tweaked Dmass (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Done to the end of his life, and it's a lovely read so far. I shall wrap a cold towel around my head and tackle the Works section when I've built up the courage. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Support from me; nice work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1894–1902
 * "well liked" hyphenated?
 * I've checked and I think not. The rule seems to be that there's a hyphen only if it's used as a compound adjective before the noun, as in 'she was a well-liked woman'. Dmass (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As per my 'early life' comment, this was also asked 'from a position of ignorance!' – SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the kind of thing I feel I ought to know - but always have to look up. Google to the rescue! Looking forward to further comments when you have time. Dmass (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No more needed from me. I did a couple of minor tweaks to get in line with the MoS, but I'm happy with the rest, from a prose position (I have no knowledge about the content, so this is a prose review only).
 * Thank you very much, SC, for your support here and earlier input at PR. Greatly obliged.  Tim riley  talk    07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt
Support My detailed comments can be found at the peer review. Very nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support here and for your input at PR. Greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk    08:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim
Just to lower the tone a bit, I'm surprised his love life left him any time or energy for composing. Despite its length, I couldn't find anything significant enough to mention, a great read Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jim, for the support. He was certainly consistent in his relations with the opposite sex: a complete cad from first to last.   Tim riley  talk    16:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Maison_natale_de_Debussy.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death
 * All we know is that it's a postcard from the 1920s, so I don't think these problems can be rectified. We could maybe replace with this File:Saint-Germain-en-Laye_Maison_Claude_Debussy_2011_10.jpg which is less atmospheric, would be Ok with copyright but perhaps fall foul of freedom of panorama (the criteria for which I confess I don't understand). Nikkimaria, I'd be grateful for your comments on this (and am grateful for your review as a whole). --Smerus (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more nuanced, but we'll go with this for now: In countries that have freedom of panorama, like the UK, you can take pictures of 3D things in public - buildings, sculptures, etc - without any regard to the copyright status of the work. In countries like France, which do not, you basically have two copyrights to consider - the photographer, and the creator of the work being photographed - and therefore should have copyright tags for each. If Debussy lived in the building, we can generally assume that the building would qualify for a pre-1923 tag. However, see last point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Musical recordings should generally include a tag for both the original composition and the performance
 * File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées2.ogg: why would the uploader have right to this work? Same with File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées_4.ogg, File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées_6.ogg
 * Why indeed? - as the uploader seems to be the guy that made the recording but doesn't give any indication that the performers have given their consent. Dmass, Tim, I think these will have to go, subject to your comments.--Smerus (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree Dmass (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too. Blitzed. Put not your trust in Commons!  Tim riley  talk    08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, as ever, Nikkimaria, for review and follow-up help.  Tim riley  talk    20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since France does not have freedom of panorama, photos of 3D works should include an explicit copyright tag for the work.
 * See my comment above on panorama. As regards the tomb, there's been a long discussion on the tomb of JP Rampal which seems to be heading clearly for keep.--Smerus (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue in that case, and potentially in the case of the alternate house image you mention above, appears primarily to be originality - if a thing doesn't have creativity in its expression, it doesn't qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria (Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC) talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This section of Paris was built in 1854 as part of the second phase of Baron Haussmann's sweeping reconstruction programme under Napoleon III. The architect was Adolphe Alphand (1817-91). Would this make the copyright status public domain?  Tim riley  talk    08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, any building around during Debussy's lifetime would qualify for a pre-1923 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments etc - Brian Boulton
Generally delightful and informative (though I think the bloke who thinks the "Golliwogg's Cakewalk" renders Wagner into insignificance has a slight judgement vacuum). I didn't finish my PR musings, but here are a few further thoughts from my full reading of the article: Nothing else – although I've embarked on a sources review and will report back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of Debussy's best-known works, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune is mentioned several times in the text, without any information which describes its character (other than references to it being orchestral). I'd like a little more description – for example, that it's a symphonic poem (many people think it's a ballet), and that it is very short for a major work considered to be a masterpiece, lasting only around 10 minutes.
 * I am struggling to get on top of this sentence: "His early mélodies, inspired by Marie Vasnier, are more virtuosic in character than his later works in the genre, with extensive vocalise:". I reckon someone without music knowledge will be stumped altogether. The noun form "vocalise", meaning a particular form of sung music, is pretty obscure – many will read it as a verb and thus read the sentence as nonsense. Can the point be expressed in slightly more demotic form?
 * I'm uneasy about devoting a specific subsection to "Nature", particularly as it consists almost entirely of a quotation that doesn't directly relate to Debussy's music, rather to his personal philosophy of life and religion. It's relevant, but including it in this way seems rather to compartmentalise it. One way of treating it would be to use a paraphrased or part-paraphrased form of the quotation as a general preamble to the "Influences" section, so that we begin the section with an idea of Debussy's essential beliefs. The specific "Musical" and "Literary" subsections can then be read in that context.
 * "Their self-appointed spokesman, Jean Cocteau..." – when "their" refers to Les Six, this might sound to the casual reader as if Cocteau was one of their number. Possibly reword to clarify?
 * Thanks BB. I've reworded the cakewalk sentence to give it a clearer context. And I've clarified that L'apres midi is a symphonic poem, and qualified Cocteau. Thinking about the other points.--Smerus (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also WP:BOLDly incorporated the 'nature' section, having abbreviated it, in the 'impressionism' section where I think it belongs and copyedited that section accordingly to give what seems to me to be a better flow of ideas. And I've clarified (I hope) 'vocalise'.--Smerus (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Smerus! Most of the points BB was unhappy with were my fault.  Tim riley  talk    20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Tim, I'm a bit worried about the 'Mysterious nature' quote actually. Does it appear anywhere except in the Vallas 1933 book? I don't find a source citing whether it appears in a letter, or in something published by CD, or whatever.......--Smerus (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing leaps out from online sources, certainly. I'll toddle down to the British Library later this morning and have a rummage. I've ordered Vallas's book and will see where, if anywhere, he reckons to have got the quotation. More on this after lunch.  Tim riley  talk    06:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to say I think we can be satisfied with the provenance of the quotation. It is from an interview with Debussy by Henry Malherbe, published in Excelsior magazine on 11 February 1911; this was while Debussy was composing the music for Le Martyre de saint Sébastien, and the religious aspect was an important part of the interview. Vallas devotes three pages (224–226) to the article. –  Tim riley  talk    11:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks: as this quote is featured a lot online in various places without source or date, I've added these to the article.--Smerus (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * V. good move. Quite apart from validating our own source, it will make Wikipedia the online authority for anyone wanting to cite the quote.  Tim riley  talk    14:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: All concerns thoughtfully addresed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BB, for your support, and for your input at PR and your sources review below. Hugely obliged.  Tim riley  talk    17:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review
The sources are generally of the appropriate quality and reliability; I have noted one possible exception below. There are a few format issues (numbers per this version):
 * Ref 5: language should be stated (also 17, 105)
 * Done x 3  Tim riley  talk    06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 20: Why is this source (Djupdal) reliable per WP:FACR?
 * A legacy, of doubtful interest which I shall gladly blitz forthwith.  Tim riley  talk    20:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (And duly done.   Tim riley  talk    06:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)))
 * Ref 53: pp. missing
 * Done Dmass (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 54: space required after p.
 * Done Dmass (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 55: pp missing
 * Done Dmass (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 59: "passim" is not particularly helpful to a researcher. It would be better to employ the form used in the previous ref, which gives a selection of page references
 * It seemed to me, and still does, the best way to refer to a whole book rather than any particular part of it, but I've replaced with the complete page-range of the text.  Tim riley  talk    06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 88: replace "p," with "p."
 * Done Dmass (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 89: please check this link – it's not working for me.
 * Me neither. I only put it in last week, too! Substitute found and used.  Tim riley  talk    06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 113 (first part): the University of Illinois is not the publisher. The material is apparently a copy of an email sent by Dr Tipei to a student.
 * Trimmed.  Tim riley  talk    20:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 158 is rather oddly constructed.
 * Reformatted  Tim riley  talk    06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources list. A couple of alphabetic order slip-ups:
 * reverse Brown → Boulez
 * reverse Poulenc → Potter
 * Reversed Dmass (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No further sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the source review, BB. I think we have covered all the points you raise above.  Tim riley  talk    06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
This is also primarily a source review, specifically focused foremost on formatting consistency.
 * In templated references, typically, archive information goes last. Now, there's no requirement that you template, or do things the same way. But the problem here is because the webarchive template ends in a period, it produces an unfortunate ".," sequence in many of your references.
 * For journal articles indexed by JSTOR, you link the titles to the JSTOR landing page, and then provide a Wayback Machine archival link to the JSTOR page. That's not... exactly correct, since the Wayback Machine isn't providing an archival copy of the source itself in this situation. The templates typically link JSTOR entries by number, at or near the end of the citation. That's probably not mandated by the MOS, but might be something to consider.
 * The "Concours du Conservatoire" reference has some problems. First, it's missing volume/issue information for Le Mercure Musical (specifically: volume 4, number 8). Additionally, although what you are citing is on page 98 of the pdf, that's actually page 940 of the journal.
 * Pasler, in The Musical Times, is missing volume/issue information (volume 123, number 1672).
 * You cite Grove Music Online most of the time, but the Nectoux reference calls it Grove Online.
 * I'm fairly certain the MOS requires lists of page numbers cited in a single reference to be in order (as opposed to "pp. 12–13, 24, 27, 59 and 4").
 * Newman (1918) is missing volume/issue information (volume 59, number 903).
 * The "Alphabetical order" reference is formatted in a very different way than the rest of the Centre de documentaion Claude Debussy references are. As it isn't explicitly bylined to the Centre, I believe this one is incorrect and the format of the others is preferred.
 * Pasler, in 19th-Century Music is missing volume/issue information (volume 6, number 1).
 * Goubault has an issue number correctly provided, but is missing the volume number (76).
 * Orledge, in The Musical Times is missing volume/issue information (volume 115, number 1582).
 * Nadeua is missing volume/issue information (volume 66, number 1).
 * DeVoto is missing volume/issue information (volume 66, number 4).
 * You have two citations to BBC Radio 3, but they are not formatted in the same way.
 * You have at least a couple of initial author names that are either presented incorrectly in [first last] order, or else are missing the comma ("Robert Andres", "Phillips C. Henry", "Briscoe James R.").
 * Briscoe is missing volume/isuse information (volume 44, number 12).

No examination of prose or images done, at least for now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What are the criteria for having a source in §Sources instead of cited in-line in §References? I assumed that the sources were all book-length works, but there is at least one journal publication there as well (de Martelly). That's doubly inconsistent because it uses a cite family template, which formats it rather differently than the hand-rolled entries in the previous section.
 * Some of your publisher locations are smaller or less familiar cities which probably require the inclusion of their country (Château-Gontier, Milton Keynes) or state (Van Nuys, etc.). But be consistent about when and how you do this, on a per-location basis.
 * Schmitz (1966) has what I presume to be an errant "P" at the end.
 * You don't always cite editors in the same way. Compare Nichols (1980) and Orledge (2003). Consider the editor (and, where appliable, translator) fields of the cite book template, or else ensure that people and roles in the others field are consistently treated.
 * Comments noted. Thank you.  Tim riley  talk    22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Co-noms: I'll have a further look at these points over the next day or so. All pretty minor at first glance, but possibly worth considering. More anon.  Tim riley  talk    06:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Taking the above comments seriatim: There are a few helpful points there, for which thanks. (May I ask {{{ping|Smerus}} or to consider the point raised in the seventeenth bullet point, above?)   Tim riley  talk    06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the template is badly designed (there should be no full stop as the words are not a sentence) but there it is. It doesn't affect the reader's ability to verify the citations.
 * As above, a problem with the software. But nevertheless better to have the Wayback links, I think. They may be ugly but they provide continuing verifiabiity, which is what references are for, of course.
 * Vol etc numbers otiose. Publication and month suffice. It would be possible, but equally unhelpful, to add, say "Issue 38966" to ref 61. Verifiability is not compromised by the dual pagination – it is clear enough to anyone.
 * As above. For extreme consistency I have removed the vol etc from the MQ ref.
 * Yes. There is a now a Grove Art Online too. Done. You do not mention the publisher, but I have made it the OUP at each mention.
 * That would be unhelpful to the reader, as the pages refer in that order to the content.
 * As above.
 * Agreed. Done.
 * As above.
 * Issue number needed in this case, exceptionally, as there were two issues in 1990, with no month named. Volume would add nothing useful, each year having its own volume number.
 * As above
 * As above
 * As above
 * Indeed. Now harmonised.
 * Done
 * As above
 * I'll ask one of my co-noms to address this point.
 * I don't think the geographical coordinates of Van Nuys are going to be a matter of concern to the reader.
 * Removed.
 * Sadie given brackets.
 * For what it is worth, my own practice is to include anything which is (originally) printed or is a standard source of reference in 'Sources'. That would include e.g. anything in Grove, Britannica and Oxford Companion (on- or off-line), and journal articles such as the De Martelly article mentioned. (Mea culpa, I was the one who unthinkingly put de Martelly in Sources when I did an edit, so I am the one who sparked this off). I.e., for me anyway, as far as possible the only sources given in full in 'References' are web-site references. But a simple alternative for consistency purposes would be to remove my de Martelly cite to References. I promise to lose little sleep.--Smerus (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Duly adjusted.  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ssilvers
Support. Comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced and beautifully illustrated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Ss, for your support here and input at PR. Greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk    06:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Both late to the party, and rather redundant, as this appears to have more than a sufficiency of support. And just when you'd hit upon a composer I'd heard of. I'd have done a source review but BB's beaten me to that. Anyway, it's a beautifully written and impeccably sourced piece, and fully merits FA status. KJP1 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, KJ! Your kind words and support are greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk    16:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Zingarese
I am also (very!) late to the party, but thought I'd lend my full support as well. This article is consise, written in a very professional tone, incredibly comprehensive, and well-sourced. Congratulations on such a beautiful article. Support. Zingarese (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One question, however, regarding Le Martyre de saint Sebastien; why "wholly orchestral suite" as opposed to "orchestral suite"? I think it can be reasonably inferred that the term "orchestral suite" is a suite for nothing but an orchestra :-) Zingarese (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and now trimmed. Thank you very much for your support, Zingarese and for your kind comments on the article. Very much obliged.  Tim riley  talk   08:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  15:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.